lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (02/05/85)
It seems likely that the more people that have to sign something, the
less likely we are to get people to participate. For example,
I write for a national magazine. I wasn't forced to sign a document
taking resposibility for anything of mine that they might publish
that might cause a problem. I would probably refuse to sign such
a statement, since I don't have any final control over what they
publish. Since they are the publishers, I assume that they will
take the responsibility for what they decide is appropriate
to print. I doubt very much if very many people would be willing
to accept personal legal responsibility for material they moderate
in an actual service. I also have a suspicion that if push came
to shove, the provider of the service would still be held responsible,
on the grounds that a "only the moderators have responsibility"
system is an irresponsible transfer of control over the medium. I'm just
speculating on this last point, of course.
I just don't think too many individuals, many without lawyers to
consult easily, would be willing to accept personal responsibility.
--Lauren--
P.S. It should be kept in mind at all times that there is no
"information monopoly" involved in all of this. People
are free to continue using whatever other mediums they
see fit to pass around information. A stargate-type
service would simply be another avenue from which people
could choose to accept information if they so desired.
--LW--uchuck@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles Bennett) (02/05/85)
I have read with great interest the ongoing debate over STARGATE
moderation vs. censorship and how might it be handled. Here is
an idea which is unaligned, reasonable and appears to protect
the "freedom" the net currently enjoys. If I have/had a vote I
would cast it for the John Hughes proposal, it makes good sense.
Now for the BIG question is it legally and technically implimentable??
--
-Chuck Bennett-
919-966-1134
... ...!(decvax,akgua)!mcnc!ecsvax!uchuckjohn@chalmers.UUCP (John Hughes) (02/06/85)
This is a proposal for managing Stargate that might appeal to both camps. Both sides of the argument seem to have legitimate concerns. Obviously nobody wants to be sued, or to find themselves carrying an uncontrollable volume of data. On the other hand, Stargate represents a new information medium which may become very important in the future. We all OUGHT to be concerned if any organisation has a monopoly of supplying information, no matter how benign. We would all worry if one publisher bought all the national newspapers. The present ideas about "moderation" seem unsatisfactory on both counts. There is no guarantee that moderators will keep the volume of information low enough, and there is a possibility that some time in the future they will become censors. The alternative I suggest is based on an analogy between the carrier and a printer, and the moderators and publishers. There are two basic principles: 1. Anybody at all should be able to become a moderator, and start publishing their own newsgroup. This guarantees no censorship. The only catch is that they have to sign a contract accepting legal responsibility for libel, obscenities etc in their own publication (I'm no legal expert, but surely such a thing can be made as near watertight as makes no difference). 2. Only the most popular publications go via Stargate (measured by the number of people subscribing to them). The carrier can choose how much bandwidth to devote, by taking either the top 50 or top 1000 or whatever - the point is the volume is controllable. With this system net.oneeyed.parrots is safe, if enough people read it. If it is dropped, the carrier and the moderators can't be blamed - who can argue with democracy/market forces? The system encourages publications that people actually want to read, whatever their subject. At the same time, anybody who thinks the news is biased can set up net.my.personal.opinions, so long as he can persuade enough people to read it. New publications must be able to get "airspace" somehow. Either they could get top priority (because no-one has unsubscribed to them yet), or, if that was abused, advance orders could be required. In this case, there's obviously scope for someone to moderate a net.adverts. It seems to me that a system like this avoids very many of the problems that have been raised. What do the rest of you think? John Hughes, Chalmers University, Gothenburg. john%chalmers%ykxa@ucl-cs